The Radical Center

By Ty Bell

Every ideology requesting allegiance or attention is inviting us into relationship. When we enter into relationship, we consent to its influence in shaping our world.

With people, we don’t just look at what they say they are about and what they claim to stand for. We look at how they are standing. One of the things we discern is whether or not they acknowledge their own darkness. How aware are they of their own shadows and shortcomings and how honest and good-humored are they about them? How well do they receive and respond to criticism?

If they lack awareness but still show respect and openness they are probably just still growing up. Their darkness is still hidden from their own view, as they are still on the journey of discovery. It’s still wise to apply a grain of salt to their stated intentions. They aren’t yet aware of the unconscious forces driving them; so what they say they’re up to can’t be trusted completely yet because they don’t know themselves completely yet. You probably don’t want to let them lead you anywhere or use their compass as your guide.

The ones we sense to watch out for are the people who flex their distorted self-image so extremely that it’s obvious they are hiding some demons. The alert level goes up to ‘danger’ when these people are asserting dominance based on this inauthentic assertion of superiority. The sure sign that the relationship is a toxic is when their deflection strategies are so reactive that you end up silenced by fear of how they’ll react. You know it’s toxic when every criticism you bring up is met by attempts to silence or discredit you, or gaslight you into believing you are the only one with the problem. Often times these people have sharp-witted insights into the flaws of others. They focus their attention on other people’s weaknesses to prevent self-reflection and to gather as currency that helps them assert dominance. Conceding to their valid points and revealing your own shadows in a relationship like this just spins a cycle of madness because when they are unwilling to do the same, your own exposed vulnerabilities are just used against you to reinforce the toxic power dynamic.

The conventional wisdom is to avoid relationships like this, and if we find ourselves in one, to reclaim our power by ending it. Because no matter how well-intentioned they are, their character is beyond their control. They are possessed by the shadows they won’t acknowledge, so healthy relationship isn’t possible. We can understand that their inability to reckon with their own darkness is a response to pain, and still love and appreciate their beautiful qualities but it doesn’t mean should keep playing into the cycle. We deserve better.

When you encounter an ideological narrative, listen to its tone, and how it postures itself. It’s often subtle and implicit, especially when it’s ‘just reporting facts’ – you have to listen closely not only to what’s said, but what’s not said. Does it frame its opposition honestly, or does it assert itself as dominant over a straw man? Does it respond to criticism with deflection or with self-examination? Is it aware of its shadows, and does it have a sense of humor about them? Or does it react with moral outrage when they are illuminated? Does it prop itself up on the ignorance and/or immorality of its dissenters? Or does it stand on its own and engage in honest dialogue? There’s nothing wrong with righteous anger, fiery criticism, or passionate display of emotion. Apply the same standards we would for a healthy relationship. It’s when they use these as deflection strategies to keep their own darkness from being revealed that it becomes problematic. And when they demoralize criticism and use force to assert dominance, that’s when it becomes toxic.

All ideas, like all people, contain inherent light and darkness. A unique and inherent spectrum of possibility that spans both positive and negative. It doesn’t matter what the ideology says it stands for, or how much it believes in its own sincerity. If it doesn’t take ownership of its shadows, it’s operating at a level of incoherence or pathology. This is what Jordan Peterson means when he says ideas can become pathological. They aren’t pathological fundamentally because of their stated goals and values- these may very well be good, or at least well-intended. All ideologies, after all, claim to be based on something that’s fundamentally good: love, equality, freedom, justice, etc. His critique of the modern Left was not so much its particular values, but it’s pathological posturing. Most of his critics seem to miss that deeper point, which is that ideologies can be toxic at a level that’s more fundamental than their stated values and goals. This happens when they remain unaware of their dark side and unwilling to acknowledge it. Especially when they assert dominance and exhibit traits of the abusive narcissist. Microcosm, macrocosm.

An ideology that doesn’t integrate its polarities and respond honestly and sufficiently to valid criticism is standing on fallacies and contradictions, and being propped up by some form of manipulation. And when it can’t acknowledge its own shadow, it’s possessed to one degree or another by unconscious forces it doesn’t even understand. It may have conscious values and aims that are good, but do we trust people on this basis alone? How about when they become aggressive and try to bully or ridicule us into trusting them, how about then?

There is an instinct awakening in the collective that says, in response to the current ideologies on offer, particularly those being pushed by the media: It doesn’t matter what you say stand for. If how you’re standing is untrustworthy and abusive to the critical free thinker we do not consent to allowing you to shape our world or to enabling your power. If you try to gaslight us into the notion that all of our critical questions are motivated by support for the opposition or a weakness of moral character, we will call your tactics out for what they are: narcissistic, abusive power plays that reveal why you are not worthy of allegiance.

Many don’t seem to understand that this reaction is not fundamentally to the values themselves, but the way they are being postured. Passionate adherents of ideologies, especially those who are working to influence public opinion, would be wise to consider where they fall on the posturing spectrum. If they are embodying narcissistic traits we can’t reasonably expect them to take responsibility for the opposition and counter-narratives they inspire. Just like we can’t expect a narcissistic person to take responsibility for the rebellious behavior of the people they are abusing. In this frame of mind, the finger only knows how to point outward. But those of us who are not possessed by this frame of mind can call attention to it and know how to protect our own sacred sovereignty as free thinking people.

By Ty Bell

Picture a group of masked humans. Make it double-masked for good measure. What do you see? A group of responsible people cooperating, aligning with science, and unifying to demonstrate compassion for the vulnerable? Or, a group of pitiful souls falling prey to dehumanization, disconnection, and technocratic tyranny while being manipulated to serve the interests of sociopathic elites?

To say that masks have become the most divisive symbol of our times would be an understatement.

Let’s put the fact claims from both camps aside here, and simply explore the psychological and philosophical implications of mask normalization. When we do this, it becomes clear that we are not going ‘back to normal’ (in my view) with regards to masks. Without another paradigm-altering event to set us on a new course, masks are here to stay.

Let’s follow the logic and look at the underlying principles that shape the mask enthusiast’s worldview. Masks save lives and in particular, protect the vulnerable. Thus, masks are a rational response to the threat of contagious illness that could lead to fatality or at least serious illness for some people. Right now, they add the qualifier ‘while in a pandemic.’ Which seems important to qualify because saying outright that we are doing this forever would dampen the enthusiasm and make the whole proposition seem absurd, right? But when we think this through, that bubble bursts. There is no end in sight to the ‘pandemic’ status, as it is being defined. Like the threat of terrorism, the threat of the virus will persist. If masks are a rational response now, they will continue to be a rational response indefinitely no matter what the numbers say in the near or distant future.

What defines “post pandemic” status? Notice how the mask-enthusiast experts have not clearly identified this goal post. Even if herd immunity is achieved on this or that particular virus, there will still be risks of new outbreaks, new strains, etc.

According to the logic of germ theory, there has always been and always will be a risk of infecting other people with viruses, and there has always been immune-compromised (i.e. vulnerable) people who are suffer ring from other conditions that make viruses likely to trigger serious illness or death. We may ‘win a war’ against one particular virus, but the war that’s being waged now is broader: it’s not just one virus, it’s the threat of all future viruses as well.

There is no end to the Virus Enemy just like there is no end to the Terrorist Enemy. This is not fundamentally because of any nefarious plots – any plots that do exist are exploiting the basic facts and psychological framework that are fundamentally in play. The threat of either one of these identified enemies causing harm will always exist. There’s always going to be some people who resist distancing and mask guidelines and there’s always going to be people who will remain unvaccinated. The logical solution, with the framework in place: continue masks and social distancing ad infinitum “just to be on the safe side.”

From a business standpoint, it’s now just the pragmatic thing to do, especially in progressive parts of the country. No business owner wants to be shut down or investigated by the health department, or be responsible for any transmission. In some right-leaning parts of the country, sure, some business owners would lift the restrictions if this appeals to the majority of their patrons and they knew they had no chance of ending up legally in hot water. Where I am in Eugene, Oregon, I think we’re past the point of what the governor is or isn’t mandating now. Masks have become a cultural symbol for progressivism (and the binary to Trumpism and with it, bigotry, selfishness and ignorance). A business in any progressive-leaning area risks upsetting their patronage by removing mask guidelines, so from a purely business standpoint, I just don’t see it happening.

COVID is a reality-altering event, very much like 9/11. Can any policy ever give 100% assurance that there is no more risk of terrorism? Of course not. Nothing ever gives 100% assurance of anything. So, the enhanced security and surveillance methods put in place after 9/11 were permanent, because the event awakened a fear, and our rational control-based ‘attack the enemy’ paradigm responded rationally within its default framework of control and risk mitigation to this newly perceived threat.

Remember, we didn’t tell ourselves they were permanent at the time. 20 years later, we’re still being spied on by the NSA, the federal government still has the power to convict and imprison us without trial if we are ‘suspected terrorists’, we still have the same airline security protocols, and we still have U.S. troops in the Middle East! Had this been proposed in this context: hey, for the next 20+ years, this is what we’re gonna do. Would we have been on board? Of course not.

This very same rhetoric can and will be used to keep masks and distancing going, indefinitely.

Is this the world we want to live in? Would it be worth it, to stay masked in public forever, if it saved a hundred lives per year? A thousand lives? A million lives?

The very idea of quantifying it with a number is absurd, because now that our attention is focused so strongly on virus-related deaths, no deaths seem acceptable. It’s like saying, hey, we’ll go back to normal once there is only 100 people or less that die of terrorist attacks each year. Reason and compassion say no, that would be callous toward those 100 lives. Even if we only save 100 lives, we need to keep the measures in place.

Is the reduction of deaths triggered by contagious illnesses the most important thing for determining the well-being of society? Is this the metric that we’re going to put at the top of our hierarchy for how well we are doing? Is it possible to care deeply about the collective welfare of humanity, while opposing masks and more broadly, the whole control-based response to viral outbreaks? Of course. But doing this requires that we step outside of the orthodoxy of germ theory and be willing to view viruses through other lenses, and that we consider other aspects of our collective well-being that are harder or maybe even impossible to quantify.

If you think that a critique of germ theory is equivalent to a refutation of it, allow me to help broaden your imagination: I believe that germ theory points to an accurate set of facts about how how viruses spread, and I believe that this view of viruses is potentially damaging because of what it excludes. It’s not about germ theory being incorrect, so much as it is incomplete.

Terrain theory offers an entirely different lens – one that is so incompatible with the present establishment (not just of medicine but our whole way of thinking), that it’s reflexively censored as ‘misinformation.’ That’s right – according to the present level of discourse on the big media platforms, doctors like Zach Bush and Thomas Cowen are no different than Russian bots or Qanon cult members. They have been cast out into the same proverbial dust bin. Which is enough to make any critical thinker who’s actually read their work go “huh?”

This is a major clue to look for in any discourse which alerts us to the fact that the discourse itself lacks intelligence or sincerity (or both). When the defenders of a narrative work not to respond to criticism, but to silence, dismiss and mischaracterize it, that’s a dead giveaway that the narrative can’t stand on its own without props.

Here’s the basic formula, in no particular order, for smearing and dismissing the mask skeptics:

Use an incredulous tone so it’s implied that critics of masks are insensitive to vulnerable people. Use smug catch phrases like “I trust the science” to convey a binary and a dismissal of those who “don’t believe in science.” Setup a straw man, like “Qanon right-wing conspiracy theorist” to dismiss any criticism on both intellectual and moral grounds so it’s implied that critics are ignorant, callous, and complicit in harmful rhetoric. Use the fact that there are bonafide disinformation campaigns to dismiss any and all criticism as having stemming from one of these sources. Share personal stories of how the virus has affected you or people you know and/or name drop people you know who work in the medical profession to dismiss the critics as morally insensitive and intellectually inferior. Repeat the phrase “conspiracy theorist” over and over to dismiss any information or perspectives that don’t fit with the narrative and dehumanize the critics.

The other side has it’s straw-man tendencies too, no doubt. They like to pretend like everyone who’s pro-mask is acting out of fear and is pro totalitarian government takeover. The hyperbolic reaction on this side is “oh, so you’re pro mask? I guess that means you don’t care about freedom, you’re for the Big Pharma nanny state, and you don’t believe in courage?” That and the whole smug deal of “yeah, well I don’t wear a mask because I’m not afraid and not brainwashed” which of course is meant to dismiss anyone who wears a mask as doing so out of fear or blind obedience. The straw man arguments coming from the anti-mask community are just as hyperbolic and disingenuous as those from the pro-mask side.

Conversations with straw men get us nowhere. They simply perpetuate division and misunderstanding. I don’t know what it looks like or how we get there, but I have the sense that healing and transformation are possible here in the integration of these two polar archetypes. It’s not about one dominating the other out of existence. It’s an integration.

The first image is one of masked humans all cooperating with deep care for one another. Heart chakras open and radiating love and compassion. Putting self-interest aside for the well-being of the whole. Now, picture a seemingly opposite image: An individual awakening and reclaiming their personal power and sovereignty. Ripping off the mask in an act of righteous civil disobedience, saying ‘no’ to the old reductionist control-based paradigm (i.e. the patriarchy, broadly speaking) and saying ‘yes’ to a more holistic understanding of health and human cooperation. I believe the Age of Aquarius is an invitation to integrate these polar archetypes, as both of them convey something that’s critical for us in this time. Can we recognize the beauty and the necessity conveyed by both images, and integrate them? If we stay stuck in the binary, consider, who and what does that serve? And at what cost to our own health and happiness?

By Ty Bell

The war mentality is so ingrained in our thinking that we consider it common sense in the face of any challenge. The formula: name the challenge a ‘problem’ and identify its single linear cause (reductionism); make it the enemy (duality); and then defeat it (control). The assumed binary is you can fight the war and be part of the solution, or don’t fight the war and be part of the problem. These are the dominant and default paradigms of our patriarchal civilization: reductionism, duality and control.

I have witnessed three major socio-political War on Problem campaigns in my lifetime, all appealing primarily to conservatives. There was the War on Immorality in the late 80s/early 90s that came response to things like pornography, gangster rap and death metal. At the same time, the War on Drugs was also raging. This appealed to an even wider audience, though still predominantly conservative. Then came the War on Terror. This perhaps gained the biggest wave of public frenzy but it was still primarily, or at least most vocally, from the Right.

Hanging in Left-leaning circles for most of my life, I rarely encountered anyone that took part in these wars, or even really took them seriously. Instead, they were always criticized. It wasn’t that we were in denial of the problems, or unsympathetic to people suffering from them. That was the caricature – we were just a bunch of drugged out satan worshipping America-haters, and that’s why we weren’t joining these wars. That was the binary setup that many on the Right bought into: you either wave your flag and beat the war drum and support the cops, or you stand with the terrorists and gang members pushing drugs in the streets!

Of course that wasn’t it. It was that none of these problems triggered our insecurities, traumas, and judgements in the same way they did those who were swept up in them. That gave us the ability to observe more objectively, to see that these wars for what they were: ineffective solutions by sincere people, mixed in with cynical traps by insincere people in positions of power. We were not personally threatened by rap music, or drugs, or terrorism, so this gave us a kind of immunity to these campaigns. Our detachment from the fear gave us the ability to see clearly what was happening.

We observed, first, that even when wars are fought sincerely, they don’t work. Because there’s a backlash. Meaning, even if you remove the possibility of any corruption or malicious intent, we can see how all three these wars actually inflamed the problems. And, created more problems as a result of the war tactics that were employed. For those of us who’ve studied esoteric principles, it’s a simple observation: what we resist persists.

We also observed how the people who were buying into these wars were having their insecurities manipulated to support nefarious political agendas. We pointed out that these wars were being waged by powerful people who had no intention of actually resolving the problems, but instead, to use the problem-reaction-solution formula for their own benefit to assert power. This is now no longer ‘conspiracy theory.’ It is documented fact, and now widely accepted by the mainstream. This is one of the main reasons that these wars of the past have lost steam – they’ve all been exposed.

These observations used to only come from the anti-establishment Left, but are now pretty widely recognized. The War on Drugs was used to grow the private prison system and covertly continue the American tradition of race and class oppression after these went out of fashion to promote explicitly. To continue this trajectory, a more covert strategy was needed, so they manipulated people’s fears about drugs to manufacture consent for what amounted to a war on minorities and poor people. The War on Terror manufactured consent for wars in the Middle East, mass surveillance, and extrajudicial justice. Most people on the Left look back to those who supported these wars as enablers of these agendas. Some are so filled with anger (adopting the war mentality themselves) that anyone who supported these wars are labelled as racists, classists and generally terrible people. The more generous and open-minded Lefties would say most are good people who just had their insecurities manipulated by nefarious political actors.

Some of us that lived through all of these have been looking around for the past few years, wondering WTF is going on? I thought we (the Left) were the ones who didn’t buy into these War on Problem campaigns. I thought we were all about freedom, and recognizing that control doesn’t actually bring solutions. I thought that’s what our bumper stickers were saying – NO MORE WAR! I thought we were the ones who were discerning enough not to fall for this, because we saw the war game for what it was. What happened?

It seems like what happened is we now have challenges that appeal to the Left side of the cultural divide, thus making it the side that is now vulnerable to the war mentality. Vulnerable to the same things that used to prey more on the Right: insecurities, traumas and judgements. That’s why everyone feels like something has flipped in 2020. Because it has. Not the core values of the two different sides, that divide is still real and speaks to an ancient polarity. That part hasn’t changed – but what HAS changed is where the focus is now with the problems the media is telling us to go to war with. We have a War on Trump, a War on Social Injustice, a war on a Virus, and a War on Climate Change.

Do you see how this flips the script? The core values haven’t changed, but the mentality has changed. Because when you’re waging a war, you’re in a different state of mind. Up until recently, the Left was not swept up in the war mentality frenzy, so its character and tone were a lot different. This is why people comment now how right-wingers are often times more open minded, willing to listen and less judgmental these days. Because they are in the position that the Left used to be in, when the wars against immorality and drugs and terrorism were raging. Lefties weren’t swept up in these frenzies. We didn’t have our insecurities being activated in ways that made us shut down to information, and see others who disagreed was as the enemy. That’s what they did – so we associated that quality as something that right-wingers do. They act judgmental and aggressive. They dehumanize and belittle. They aren’t willing to listen to other points of view. That was always the stereotype about the Right when I was growing up: less compassionate, less objective, and more authoritarian.

Turns out, these are not qualities inherent to the Right or the Left. These are qualities that permeate when the war mentality gets switched on. The only options are to defeat or be defeated. We become narrow-minded, logically challenged, and aggressive. Dehumanization of the ‘other’ is not only helpful in winning; it’s actually necessary. Once the war mentality gets switched on, the other side loses its humanity. They become _____ists. Fill in the blank with whatever morally offensive term, and what you now have is a group on the other side that’s less than human. They are not people who believe in ____, or who have some wounds or misunderstandings. They are ____ists. That linguistic difference is significant. This gives soldiers in the war permission to treat the ‘others’ as less than human. Just like the colonizers of old that dehumanized others as ‘savages’ and ‘heathens’ to justify the pursuit of their goals. Same way now in the war against ‘bigots’ ‘racists’ and ‘science-deniers.’ These terms give them a less-than-human status which supports the war mentality against them. They reinforce a lack of empathy and unwillingness to listen or validate their deeper wounds or core needs.

The wars they bait us into are never in our best interest to fight.

They will always be presented as in our best interest, because indeed, there are real challenges we have to face. Fight the war, or support the enemy. That is one of the most destructive thought patterns I think we could have ever dreamed up as a species. It’s made us extremely vulnerable to manipulation.

How is the war on the Self going? Is the personal growth community embracing the war mentality, because it has an awesome track record of producing positive results? Recovery circles use the term ‘white knuckling’ to describe the state of control when an addict is using will-power to stay sober. Every recovering addict will tell you that this is not a sustainable path. Because eventually you’ll lose control. Control cannot be held forever. And the process of keeping yourself controlled restricts the organic flow of life.. So even when control does work, it’s not a joyful way to live. Better to heal so that you aren’t stuck in a duality all the time between fighting the self or giving in to destructive desires. Heal the traumas so control is no longer necessary. Transcend that duality by changing the conditions that gave rise to it in the first place, and experience true freedom.

Healing occurs when we get out of the control loop, and stop fighting a war on our traumas and so-called defects.. Stop making them the enemy, and stop obsessing over control, suppression and domination of these parts of ourselves. We can also observe that when we go to war with the self, we open ourselves up to being manipulated by a subversive power, just like in the political wars. In this case it’s not a shadow government or corporation that’s manipulating the mentality – it’s our own egos! The ego is never wants to relinquish control. So, it sets up a trap: Follow this path of control that I lay out for you as logical and necessary – let me lead you on a fight against this problem – and you will be free. The effect? We never get free from the problem, and we give the ego more and more power, thus, making the problem even harder to solve. If the problem does get resolved (sometimes, indeed, control is effective, for a period of time) it does so at the expense of a now overly inflamed ego that is just going to go create another problem somewhere else.

This is true not only with addictions, but with any behavior pattern we are trying to change.

Moral of the story: War sucks. We need to let this sync in all the way, at a deeper level than just repudiating violence and militarism. War sucks on a level that is so much deeper….these things are just symptoms, outcroppings of the war mentality. If we keep fighting wars with everything we see as a problem, we’ll eventually destroy all life as we know it. That’s the trajectory of war. It not only destroys the enemy – it destroys itself. For in truth, there is no enemy that’s ‘out there.’ There is no such thing as “I win, and you lose.” That’s a delusion. Everyone loses in war. It doesn’t matter what you’re fighting for, how good or noble the cause is. If we’re in a war, we’re inflaming the wound we are seeking to heal, and opening ourselves up to be manipulated by powerful forces who stand to benefit from this vicious cycle and will work to maintain it at all costs. These people do not want healing; they want power. And they know how to manipulate our war mentality so that our own traumas and insecurities are channeled for this end.

With this understanding, I, and many others are saying no, we won’t fight these wars. We won’t be manipulated into this binary. When challenges arise, we will choose healing. Not war. War never heals. In only destroys. If your movement embodies the war mentality, I’m out. I will not join this chorus. And I won’t be manipulated by the false binary that says this means I’m not with you in the cause, that I don’t want to heal the issue you’re calling attention to. In fact, when I’m sympathetic to the issue, I’m even more averse to joining the war, because I have seen war have nothing but counterproductive results. With this understanding, the wars being fought in the name of causes we care about most actually awaken the most offense and aversion. Because they are effectively saying “hey, join this movement that’s going to make what you really care about most even further out of reach, and perpetuate the forces that are keeping what you want from happening Also, as an added bonus, open yourself up to manipulation by powers that stand to benefit from the endless war, and will exert their power in ways so as to ensure its perpetuation.

No, thank you. I stand for healing. Not for wars that perpetuate the wounds.

By Ty Bell

“Other people’s stuff has nothing to do with you.”

This is a popular attitude that’s glorified in spiritual and personal development circles. Be yourself. Don’t take anything personally. Don’t let other people’s negative energy hold you back. If someone gives you shit, that’s 100% their problem, you just keep doing you.

This meme has power because it conveys the truth about personal sovereignty. Living for the approval of others is bondage. When we’re working to free ourselves from those programs, these kind of affirmations help us reclaim our power. And there is one aspect of reality that this meme does accurately convey. So far, so good. But does this attitude work in all applications? To explore that question I always like to ask, what does it’s shadow expression look like?

The shadow is well-depicted in the caricature of the New Age Narcissist. Any calls for consideration or empathy are deflected as your stuff. “The fact that I’m triggering you is just revealing your unhealed traumas, or is just your projection. You just need to do deeper work on yourself to see that your issue with me is just your problem. Or, you won’t see it, and then I’ll just move along to another person that’s enlightened enough to allow me freedom from consequences and introspection.”

We can see by looking at both ends of the spectrum, that this attitude embodies a solid truth about personal empowerment and free will, but it lacks recognition of our interconnectedness. And, it deprives us of value introspection.

What if we considered an alternative proposition:

Everyone’s stuff I encounter has everything to do with me.

Let’s put that to the test.

Without personal sovereignty and the confusion of ‘responsibility’ with ‘fault,’ this idea puts the mind into a quick downward spiral. It gets distorted into “take on everyone’s judgements and problems and make everything my fault.” The distortion of this reality is probably what’s given rise to this big wave of “do what you want and don’t give a fuck” attitude. Most of us carry some kind of trauma around this.

How do we retain our personal sovereignty, and accept responsibility for everyone’s actions in our field? I’m talking not just about the stuff that’s clearly feedback, or reactions to our actions. I’m talking about all of it, including the stuff that would seem to fit clearly into the “not about me at all” category, by common sense terms.

I don’t know, precisely. I just know that when I take on an attitude of radical responsibility, I feel most tapped into my power. If I have a random negative interaction that really does seem to be, by objective standards, all about another person, instead of dismissing it as “just their trip,” I find it more empowering to look at what reaction it brought up in me, and consider, what purpose did that serve in my experience? When I ask with sincerity there is always an answer that comes. The event is revealed as part of a larger arc of unfoldment, and there’s a lesson, or affirmation to be gleaned. With radical responsibility I can accept that this experience as a reflection of something in myself being either mirrored, or challenged, for a purpose. I have the choice to be a victim to something that ‘had nothing to do with me,’ or to be an active participant and creator.

Sometimes the challenge is with a more significant person in my life. Perhaps they are being judgmental in some way that I recognize is holding me back. I could follow the self-empowerment meme – that’s just their judgement. I’m free when I disconnect myself from their judgement as having nothing to do with me, and just live my truth. If I view the judgement instead as having everything to do with me, I’m led into deeper terrain that’s otherwise bypassed.

First, the consideration that perhaps their judgement is mirroring, and in a way speaking on behalf my own inner judge that has a truth I need to see, about some way I am out of integrity with my path.. Sometimes other people are voices for our own conscience. Sometimes when people accuse you of being an asshole, you really are just being an asshole. When that’s not the case, and the judgement is one I can discern is false or harmful, instead of just dismissing it as ‘their projection’ or ‘their whacky belief system’ I can still look at what it brings up in me, and ask why I’m allowing it to hold me back. What’s being triggered, and for what purpose? That question, asked sincerely, always points to something that still needs healing. It’s not ‘my fault’ because it’s trauma I carry because of things that happened to me….but it’s my responsibility to own it. Because if I didn’t have some attachment to their approval, or some judgement in myself being mirrored, their judgement wouldn’t be a trigger. If in order to feel free, I need to affirm that someone else’s opinion doesn’t matter, then there’s still something I’m internally bound to. This is showing me what that is.

In family and close relationships, seeing everyones stuff as ‘just their stuff’ seems like a recipe for a lot of bypassing. What seems to me like a more helpful framework is to see your partner and your children’s actions as mirrors and direct reflections of what you are putting into the relationships and/or what your own higher intelligence calling in for growth.. Take responsibility for all of it, and when something you don’t like shows up, reflect on what it’s showing you about you, I have never experienced anything negative with a partner or my children that I couldn’t trace back to something in myself. This way of looking at things always seems to lead to a happier and more empowered place. I’ve never decided to take radical responsibility for something that could have been written off as “not my stuff” and regretted it.

Matt Kahn offers the affirmation “Everything is here to help me.” It’s a state of mind that gives purpose to everything that comes into our experience, and from that place finds a radical freedom and self-empowerment. And also, deep gratitude for every reflection that comes. These joyful states of being come not from bypassing and deflecting things as ‘other people’s stuff’ but by welcoming them as opportunities, and trusting their purpose.

The Truth contained in the “other people’s stuff has nothing to do with you” is the essence of the Fire element. It’s a necessary and sacred function . It’s focus is self-determination, expression, evolution. We need this fire, as life presents us with situations where we need to assert it, sometimes with fury. When we are in soul-compromising situations, deprived of our power and dignity, we need that fire element to come out to say no, fuck this, I need to liberate myself from the burden of any ties to this person or situation. Once we have taken the empowering actions that are necessary and called for, the rest of the picture can come into focus. Earth, the laws of karma and consequence. Water, the ways that traumas are stored, transmitted and attracted by our physical and emotional bodies. Air, the power of thoughts, beliefs and stories in defining the scope of our experiences, and how we interpret them.

The “Just Be You, Live from Your Own Heart” attitude is represented by the sign of Leo. That beautiful, heart-centered, courageous expression that roars without regard for approval or any doubt about our worth. The polarity, Aquarius, asks not that we abandon our courageous lion hearts – but that we integrate them in our understanding of Oneness and inter-being. The understanding that we are all connected, and all co-creating together, all the time. Everything you do affects me, everything I do affects you. I am you and you are me. This doesn’t put us in bondage (well, it could, if my dystopian nightmares play out, and the obsession with control continues, because in an age of AI and our newly realized Oneness, the paradigm of control is scary. Read my thoughts on that in other posts). It has the potential, I believe (and want to focus on) to raise us up to a higher octave of freedom. The lion heart polarity reminds us that this fire element is an essential part to keep hold of. It’s that sacred personal autonomy – the IAM heart-center consciousness, that we need to bring forth. With the awareness of what we’re integrating it with, and what the end goal is. The end goal of every archetypal expression isn’t to just be awesomely and fantastically itself. It’s to integrate and dance in active relationship with the other parts that make up the whole.